It seems that there is a very small, but very loud and persistent group of people living in Vermont that want to secede from the United States. Lovely. I thought, as does one of the people quoted in the article, that we had settled this a long time ago. Right around 1865 as I recall. But that doesn’t appear to enter into the calculations or pronouncements of what is – rather obviously, judging by the rhetoric they use – an extremely left-wing group.
Disillusioned by what they call an empire about to fall, a small cadre of writers and academics hopes to put the question before citizens in March. Eventually, they want to persuade state lawmakers to declare independence, returning Vermont to the status it held from 1777 to 1791.
Neither the state nor the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids secession, but few people think it is politically viable.
"I always thought the Civil War settled that," said Russell Wheeler, a constitutional law expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. If Vermont fought and won a war with the federal government, "then you could say Vermont proved the point. But that's not going to happen."
Still, the idea has found plenty of sympathetic ears in Vermont, a left-leaning state that said yes to civil unions, no to slavery (before any other) and last year elected a socialist to the U.S. Senate.
Supporters have published a "Green Mountain Manifesto" subtitled "Why and How Tiny Vermont Might Help Save America From Itself by Seceding from the Union."
In 2005, about 300 people turned out for a secession convention in the Statehouse, and plans for a second one are in the works. A poll this year by the University of Vermont's Center for Rural Studies found that 13 percent of those surveyed support secession, up from 8 percent a year before.
"The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable — it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens," said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.
"We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war," Williams said. "If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what's left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire."
Two words, Mr. Williams (and long time readers know I do not use language like this lightly): Bite me.
I happened to look up my family name on a website that lists soldiers from the Civil War – My family name is extremely unusual in that we all come from one common ancestor and a misspelled county record (there are only about 7,000 people with this particular name in this country of 300 million.)
91 people with my family name fought in the civil war. 72 of those on the Union side (the few who fought on the other side were from branches of the family living in Southern states). Many of those 72 died. My family fought – and died – to keep this nation together.
Your narcissistic, self-absorbed goal is to tear it apart.
So does the fact that members of your family died to preserve the Union cancel out or negate the fact that members of other families (Southerners) died to preserve the sovereignty of their states?
That doesn’t seem to be much of an argument, merely an emotional outburst.
Also, do you think it was right that one group of states invaded and laid waste to another group of states? And change the U.S. from a voluntary union of free states to a unitary entity, without the consent of those states, nor by the proper method of lawmaking appointed by the constitution?
Actually, if you noticed, members of my family fought (and died) on the other side as well.
Have you ever actually read about the group of “Fire-Eaters” who led the entire secession movement and precipitated the whole war?
Hint: it had nothing to do with your reasons for objecting and everything to do with preserving slavery.
Hello.
I would consider it a privilege if you would add my blog http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com to your list of linked sites if you feel it is of a high quality.
Happy June.
eric
P.S. The Vermonters who leave should take Hollywood with them.
Amen, Gaius.
Ah yes, Mr/Ms Horvath. Voluntary is certainly an important concept, as in all those “volutary” slaves the south kept. And as far as “laid waste” is concerned, Sherman let Georgia and South Carolina off easy. If it had been up to me, the Roman example of Carthage would have been the model.
Mr/Ms Horvath, are you aware that important elements in the South planned to extend slavery to Cuba and South America, and revive the slave trade? But “sovereignty” must override any moral or ethical considerations, mustn’t it?
Pingback: Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
There’s only 5 people alive in the US today with my family name ;-> Perhaps a few more in Sicily with a variation on the spelling.
Hint: it had nothing to do with your reasons for objecting and everything to do with preserving slavery.
Well, if you believe that, you’ll believe anything!
And as far as “laid waste†is concerned, Sherman let Georgia and South Carolina off easy. If it had been up to me, the Roman example of Carthage would have been the model.
What a horrible thing to say!
I come at this from the perspective of a Christian, a conservative, and a historian, so if you actually believe that secession had nothing to do with preserving sovereignty (a historical fact) and that it is the business of the United States government to sack its own land and people (an abomination), then I suppose there’s not really much ground for debate.
What surprises me is that there are really a lot of decent, non-kooky people in Vermont. The secession movement is a small group of disgruntled people who make a lot of noise.
Might want to recheck those “historical facts” Horvath.
http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Fire-eaters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_eaters
Nice attempt at having it both ways, incidentally. You blame the US government because it:
sack its own land and people (an abomination)
But the South had seceded and proclaimed themselves a new nation, hadn’t they? As for Sherman, he did what he did out of a conviction that it was the only way to stop the bloodshed more quickly. And his sacking of property was better than having a war with no end in sight and continued deaths.
I saw this story a few days ago. The Vermont secessionists are likely nothing more than a bunch of aging hippies. They shouldn’t be taken seriously. Cut off their federal aid, social security and medicare and THEN see how badly they want to secede.
Mr. Horvath: How about preserving the sovereignty of the United States?